Skip to main content

About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 7, Us 4, Campos 3, Brian Davis 2, Aaron 2, Olague 2, California 2, The City 2, Ernestine Weiss 1, Stefan Moor 1, Ben Chafer 1, Kendra Brushman 1, Cohen 1, Fillmore Ncd 1, Mar 1, Eric 1, Weiss 1, Mr. Moor 1, Kendra 1, Goss 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 31, 2012
    9:30 - 10:00pm PST  

9:30pm
tobacco free director so i'm representing the department of public health today. this policy would inform prospective tenants of which units have been designated as smoking optional. supervisor mar, you've already basically explained what the ordinance would require and i would just like to add that over the years as the public has become much more educated and aware of the dangers of second hand smoke we've been getting a lot more calls with tenant complaints about smoking and in particular we've seen a lot of people who have called like i remember we got a call from a mother with a brand new infant, seniors with lots of chronic diseases, people with hiv, people with cancer and heart disease, who had just moved into their apartment and had no idea they were going to be exposed to second hand smoke that was drifting from other units into their apartment and they were totally at a loss of what they could do. this is basically a right to
9:31pm
know ordinance. this would inform prospective renters where smoking is allowed so they can make an informed decision and choose to decide on an all terp tiff if they don't want to be exposed to the second hand smoke. and supervisor mar, i think you talked a little bit about the 2006 surgeon general's report. one thick that was in the report, even short term exposure can be dangerous to cardiovascular health. in addition to sending out letters to the building land lords and managers what our department plans to do is to do two mailings because there will be first the apartment owners with 50 or less units who will be phased in as the first phase, so we'll do a mailing to notify those owners and then
9:32pm
subsequently on second mailing to inform the other apartment owners of the larger units and we also plan to have a web site with questions and answers and provide technical assistance. so in this way we can increase the land lords' awareness and education and really continue to have a dialogue about second hand smoke in multi unit housing. >> thank you so much for all the great work on this. so, colleagues, if there are no other questions, let's open this up for public comment. we have a number of tenant reps but also speakers from the apartment association and others so i wanted to first call up kendra brushman and ben from the mission sro collaborative. there are others too, i will call them as i have cards, charley goth from the apartment association, also victoria and stefan moor and
9:33pm
also brian davis. >> i am a community organizor with the commission sro collaborate ive. the purpose is to improve livering conditions and fight for housing justice. through my work in sro hotels i've seen a variety of health issues that sro tenants face including secondhand smoke. when the opportunity came up for us to learn more about this, we took it. for about 6 months we surveyed 300 tenants who lived in sro's and apartments in all 11 districts to find out how much second hand smoke affected them and if they would be interested in a disclosure policy. we found 57 percent of tenants had neighbors who smoke in their units and of those people, 59 percent reported secondhand smoke drifts in their apartment. they reported having someone in their unit
9:34pm
whose illness was made worse by secondhand smoke. many people didn't have enough information to make an informed decision about where they were moving. only 40 percent reported knowing when they moved in and 72 percent said they would want to know. this legislation will do three things, owners must include the smoking designation of the unit in residential vacancy unit and to any applicant prior to entering into a lease agreement. owners must provide a list to rental applicants who are offered the unit showing the designation of all units in the building that are smoking optional and the list will be updated and available to all
9:35pm
tenants. while we took on this unit to make it safer for tenants with health problems. >> let me ask you to try to wrap up as quick as you can. >> thank you. so we've made sure that leases can't be changed mid-tenancy to protect tenant protection. in conclusion, the disclosure policy gives tenants an opportunity to make an informed choice. i want to thank supervisor mar and supervisor campos for sponsoring the legislation and i urge you to pass it on to the entire board with your full support. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i am ben chafer, i work with kendra at the sro collaborative. when we were conducting the surveys in the summer and fall in 2011 we found the majority of people,
9:36pm
overwhelmingly, 4 out of 5 were in favor of the disclosure policy and even confirmed smokers were in support of the policy because they were concerned about possibly contributing to go neighbors' health issues. basically the sense i got was they wanted it make informed choices to protect their rights as well as other people's rights in the arena of smoking. as a smoker personally i believe this policy is very important to the community because it would provide tenants both in the private apartment and the sro community to make informed decisions based on an important health issue. in conclusion we'd like you to pass the legislation both to mitigate concern and confusion city-wide about the smoking history of apartments and sro rooms, as well as making it fair and equitable to protect
9:37pm
smokers who try to be just and fair about not smoking in places where the ordinance is in place. thank you supervisor mar and supervisor campos for your co-sponsorship of the legislation and we look forward to seeing it before the full board. >> mr. davis or miss weiss >> good afternoon again, my name is ernestine weiss and i congratulate you on your effort to do this, eric, but this is seriously flawed and inadequate. there's no such thing as a smoke free apartment option because when tenants get in, they are going to smoke and it's going to drift 2 apartments away and to my apartment, which has only one sliding door since it's a studio and i have to close my door and i can't have fresh air. so this is totally inadequate. we have to ban all smoking in apartments, petaluma just did
9:38pm
it, did you read about that? other cities have done it too. this is the only way to deal with this. tenants are not going to comply even if they have the option and so forth you know they are not going to do the right thing. and it's very hard to enforce. so it does nothing to prevent people from having lit cigarettes on my terrace several times during my tenancy. it's dangerous, it can start fires because people store things on their terraces. it's impossible. so the only way to do this is to have the moxie to ban it entirely. please consider that. your attempt is good but that's -- it's not the answer. the answer is to ban it entirely. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, mr. davis. >> yes, my name is brian davis from freedom from tobacco
9:39pm
again, really here to speak more personally about my experience of having lived in an apartment space above a chain smoker who refused to go outside to smoke. he lived there for a year and that year was simply hell. i have very serious asthma and, you know, having to go spend, you know, as little time as i could at home but the reality is i have to sleep there, i have to eat there, and try to live my life there and it's having to spend every single moment of my life surrounded by this intense odor, living in a turn of the century building, it was seeping up very very constantly. we spoke to him, tried to get him to smoke outside, he would not do it. fortunately eventually he moved and after that time, after we put a lot of pressure on the landlord, he made the building smoke free. so this is just to speak personally as to how important this issue is and i agree with
9:40pm
the last speaker that this is a very good first step but we need to do more. we need to make the buildings smoke free. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, mr. gaunt. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is charley goss and i work with the san francisco apartment association in government and community affairs. i am here to speak on behalf of the legislation and thank you to supervisor mar for your sponsorship. we have been trying to address tobacco smoke in apartments for several years now and we've been trying to address it in a way that wouldn't spur evictions for tenants and wouldn't spur lawsuits for land lords. the best way to go about that legislation seemed to be a disclosure policy. the disclosure policy doesn't change any current lease agreements, it changes no
9:41pm
current smoking policies but it's a disclosure of those policies. it's based on the right to know that if someone is going to move into an apartment they have the right to know if smoke will come into their apartment. it's not often that the landlord community and the tenant community gets to work together. in this circumstance i can say that we have a broad base of support. it's a commonsense piece of legislation. the landlord community is behind it, the tenant community is behind it, we've met with supervisor wiener's office as well as supervisor cohen's office and i'm here to urge you to pass this along to the full board and thank you for your sponsorship. >> thank you. thanks for your great leadership as well. >> i have a question. >> supervisor wiener. >> it's always been surprising it me that any landlords allow smoking in their buildings. if i owned a building with units in it i was renting out, i would i think just include a ban in all the leases. it
9:42pm
damages the property, it's -- do you have a sense for if there's a trend towards that that's going to eventually take care of itself? >> i would say there's a trend toward people using smoke free leases. we want to develop a disclosure policy because you can't necessarily change a lease term for a lease that's already in effect. when leases turn over, most people are using smoke free leases nowadays, smoke landlords. our standard smoke free agreement is used by a lot of landlords and it's a smoke free lease. >> do you try to educate members to be sure they don't forget to do that? >> absolutely, we have a monthly magazine, a web site, we publish monthly announcements, we'd absolutely be doing our outreach. >> thank you, next speaker. thank you. >> hello, my name is victoria
9:43pm
paque and i'm an advocate with the san francisco apartment association. the san francisco apartment soerkts supports the tobacco smoke disclosure. it would benefit prospective tenants who have a right to know if they might be exposed to second hand smoke in an apartment, and it would also help property owners and managers. letting prospective tenants know if the leases of units surrounding an apartment allows smoking helps a tenant make an informed decision about living in a building. having this information before signing a lease and moving in will result in fewer situations where a new tenant is surprised and disappointed by second hand smoke. therefore, disclothesing this information should result in fewer broken leases due to second hand smoke and nuisance complaints. prudent landlords realize it will be offset by having future
9:44pm
management problems due to second hand smoke. this disclosure is a good thing for both landlords and tenants. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is steve morg basically, the thing about a nonsmoking policy, we provided a survey and what we did was surveyed managers and owners of all in the district of san francisco and here are some of the findings we found with those surveys. 57 providers are supportive of the disclosure law. 47 percent prohibit smoking in their leases. one-third of managers, owners have received tenants about second hand smoke. most
9:45pm
residents throughout san francisco want a smoke free healthy lifestyle here in san francisco which will lead to better public health for all san franciscoans so we encourage that you support this mer err and we support and appreciate your support, supervisor mar and supervisor campos, on this policy. >> thank you, mr. moor, thank you. each member of the public will be allotted the same number of minutes to speak, except that public speakers using translation assistance will be allowed to testify for twice the amount of the public testimony time limit. if simultaneous translation services are used, speakers will be governed by the public supreme supreme.
9:46pm
>> if there's anyone else who would like to speak? >> my name is stefan white, i'm a tenant at 922 post street. i understand as the law now is landlords can ban smoking in common areas of the building like the lobby but they are not allowed it ban it in apartments. when you have smoking in some apartments it
9:47pm
drifts unquestionably it drifts into the apartments of those who don't smoke. hallways are filled with tobacco and marijuana smoke, so is the building and elevator and sometimes even the lobby area, even though i have not seen people actually smoking in those areas. i really think unless you deal with the situation directly about smoking itself, this ordinance is not going to be enough because the demand for housing is so great in san francisco that people will take whatever is available, whether the landlords actually comply with this thing or not. i with also like to say that if you are going to ban smoking in buildings it has to include marijuana smoke as well as tobacco smoke. the california epa has determined there are carcinogenic products in
9:48pm
marijuana smoke as well as tobacco smoke. i think it should be handed over to the department of health for some kind of enforcement, if not this ordinance then whatever ordinance you can come up with. >> next speaker. it looks like mr. paulson may be the last speaker. >> (singing)? this city people smoke night and day, drive me crazy hey and the night. let the smoking magic and the music get to you and just enjoy your smoking self and all your wealth. living living in the smoky, living off the smoke wall, living off the smoke wall, let the magic in the city smoking music get to you, enjoy your smoking self, living off the smoking wall the wall, off the wall, on the boat
9:49pm
free only want to be smoking free without and i hope the board will approve this deed. free, only want to be smoke free and i hope this city makes it won't you please on the boats and on the planes, the smoke's coming to america. every place that flag unfurls, it's a big old smoky world. on the boats and on the planes, here comes the smoke again stop it please. >> thank you. seeing no other public comment, public xhebt is closed. so, colleagues, i wanted to, if there are no questions let me ask our deputy city attorney john gibner to give us a couple minor amendments and keep in
9:50pm
mind the version in the ordinance in front of you is an amendment of the whole, i will be asking you to adopt the amendment but there are additional nonsubstantive amendments from mr. gibner. >> two amendments, one is in the numbering. you will see in the draft before you the numbers are 19m.01, 19m.02. we would suggest the committee amend to just make them 19m.1, 19m.2, 19m.3 and second at the end of the draft before you, section 2 includes an operative date. that provision is simply no longer needed because the effective date will be after january 1st, 2013, so we suggest that you delete that. >> thank you. so, colleagues, i just wanted to acknowledge
9:51pm
some of the public comments that i am in total agreement that this is a first step and that we need to do much more. my office will be doing our best to convene the coalition of property owners, landlords and tenant organizations to try to put our heads together to make stronger policies in the city. also i want to also just acknowledge the sense of cooperation from the san francisco apartment association, the mission sro collaborative and other tenant groups in this process so i wanted to thank them all for putting a very good piece of legislation together and i urge your support. supervisor wiener. >> i think i support the legislation. i think we should be continuing the conversation about how we develop with multi unit buildings and smoking in general. one question i have which i haven't focused on, both this item and the last item, that a person brought up was both pieces of legislation are
9:52pm
limited to tobacco as opposed to cannabis. i know this is an issue when i authored the legislation that we passed for jim warner and harvey milk plazas that banned smoking and there was no distinction made. the reason we went that route, when someone raised the issue, we looked into it and it turned out the city had never made that distinction before for example in our parks code so we decided to go with what the precedent had been. particularly in someone's home i think it raises a lot of thorny issues because if someone is using cannabis for medicinal purposes, it's hard to tell them you can't do that in the privacy of your home, although cannabis smoke certainly can impact on surrounding units but also in terms of the public space legislation probably a similar kind of thing. so i don't know what the right
9:53pm
answer is. it's a tough issue but i think it's one that we should continue to give thought to. >> agreed, agreed. so, colleagues, if there are no further comments, can we adopt the amendments as proposed by our deputy city attorney and the amendments of the whole without objection? >> yes. >> thank you. and can we support this item as well without -- with a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. thank you, everyone, for coming out. we have one more item on the agenda. miss miller, would you call our last item. >> item 7 is a hearing on the status post redevelopment in the western addition. >> sponsor is christina
9:54pm
olague. my understanding is she is to be joining us. my understanding is that there are no department presentations and i'm wondering if we can go to public comment and then hopefully the sponsor will join us. so we'll hear first from planning and then from supervisor olague. so we have aaron star from planning. >> thought you forgot about me. good afternoon, supervisors, aaron star, planning department staff. i'm here to speak about current efforts to do a rezoning, create a name neighbor commercial district in an area that was previously
9:55pm
under the authority of the redevelopment authority. we are trying to create a named area, the planning code has two categories of neighborhood commercial districts, one is an individual namedd neighborhood commercial district. they are found throughout the city and when you make a change to one of these districts it affects all property zoned that throughout the city. named neighbor commercial districts are areas like the upper fillmore ncd, polk street ncd and when changes are made to these districts they only impact that one neighborhood. it also allows neighborhoods to create more taylored controls
9:56pm
for these neighborhoods and to address specific needs and concerns. for instance, some neighborhoods have banned or required conditional use for restaurants because they feel there's an overconcentration of restaurants in their neighborhood, while other neighborhoods encourage restaurants because they like to encourage their use. what supervisor olague's ordinance would do is take properties currently zoned nc3, which stands for neighborhood cooperative moderate scale and turn them into the fillmore mcd the boundaries of the ncd fit within the old boundaries of the redevelopment area for the western addition. i believe it went all the way to bush street, which is where this neighborhood district would end. the ordinance would also remove the minimum parking controls and institute maximum parking controls, this is a
9:57pm
trend throughout the city and fits with the city's transit first policy. it would down zone sign requirements from nc3 standards to nc2 standards, and allow a 5 foot high bonus for properties that are 40 and 50 feet from the area. the supervisor would like this continued to the beginning of this year so we will probably be asking for a continuance this thursday. the department supports the creation of an individually named ncd area on fillmore street. it helps preserve the character of the neighborhood and also helps preserve a sense of identification. we are asking for some modifications which have to do with expansion of the district as well as some minor clerical modifications. that concludes my presentation and of course i'm available for questions. >> thank you, mr. star, and we have supervisor olague.
9:58pm
>> i wanted to thank mr. star and the planning department tore their work on this. we started those conversations with the merchant's association that is in the process of being formed along fillmore street because after redevelopment there was something called, well, the cvd was formed but then the cvd was not, was not -- did not last when the fillmore center, i believe, no longer decided to participate in that process. so in order to allow for the merchants to talk about how they would like to move fillmore street forward, we started to engage in those conversations with them. there's a lot of -- because since the cbd had so much authority and a lot seemed to be monopolizing the conversation about what the vision for that street, we thought, well, maybe it would be better if it were in the
9:59pm
hands at least the small businesses and that sort of thing to have that conversation come directly from the merchants. so then in the future there wouldn't be this reliance on the cbd to further that conversation. we've been asking for several months information from redevelopment and as many of you know, the redevelopment agency really is no more in california and so there is an oversight board now that meets, so whatever questions we hear come from the public today and whatever questions we've been hearing for the past few months we'll make sure to pass on because we are gone officially as of january 8th. so we decided we needed to have this hearing now because we don't have a lot of time and we've tried to have hearings previously but it was just hard pulling the different departments together with